While it varies, DNA tests (and the naked eye if it's sufficiently discerning) indicate most so called 'African and Native Americans' are much closer to being 50% African and Native American than they are to being 100% African and Native American.And most of the rest of their DNA is European.So objectively, it makes as much sense to call these population groups European as it does African or Native.In reality, they're hybrids or mongrels, not what they, or others claim they are.And so they're the ancestors of slaves, and slave masters, of natives, and colonialists/settlers.

Progressives imply most or many whites, especially white cops fear and hate Africans and Natives.If progressives really care about discrimination, why do they insist on emphasizing their otherness?Why not instead emphasize their Europeaness, or their humanness, or their racial ambiguity?The answer: because progressives can't exist without an oppressed, victim class, real or imagined, they feed on the sympathy, and funds they can garner like vultures.If none or too few exist, they'll invent some and/or exaggerate the existence of others.emphasizing their otherness only reinforces our belief, they're an other, making discrimination more possible.

These're not Africans and Natives, they're people of mixed decent, heritage, and so they should think of themselves, and be thought of as such, and so they should check the mixed race or other box during census.

Last edited by Gloominary on Sat Aug 18, 2018 6:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

On the one hand, progressives tell us there's no such thing as race, that it's a social construct.On the other hand, they tell us they can identify exactly who Africans, Natives and Europeans are, even tho the former two groups are, according to genealogical and genetic research, heavily mixed.

And apparently, laymen can identify exactly which individual belongs to which race too, otherwise, we wouldn't be able to 'systematically oppress' them.

When we're talking about how much whites discriminate against other groups, race most certainly is not a construct, but for all other intents and purposes, it most definitely is.

And progressives can tell us exactly how much these groups have been oppressed too.If x group has an average annual household income 5000 dollars less than whites, than whites owe them 5000 dollars per household, easy math.And if x group has done more jail time, it's because of whites.It couldn't be, wholly or partly, because x group has been taught by progressive education and media to disrespect the economic and judicial systems, because many-most whites are racist and you won't make it anyway, or it couldn't be because of cultural, or biological differences between population groups, naw.All groups are 100% equal in every respect, and simultaneously nonexistent, and existent, depending on the context of the discussion.It's super, high-tech science only the progressive mind can fathom.

So if Jews and some Asian immigrants outperform whites economically, educationally or whatever, at keeping out of jail, it must be because whites believe Jews and Asians are superior to them, and are positively discriminating against them. We have to do something to combat the Jewish and Asian superiority complex whites have!

We gotta tell the courts that it's white progressives who made up this otherness thing, then they can stop sentencing blacks longer for the same crimes. I can see the defense counsel assuring the judge that their client is at least 50% European.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:We gotta tell the courts that it's white progressives who made up this otherness thing, then they can stop sentencing blacks longer for the same crimes. I can see the defense counsel assuring the judge that their client is at least 50% European.

Finally we found the root of the problem.

And, then the OP is part of the truth.

We so nice, you so bad liberals

ain't helping.

If libs and African Americans run studies about length of prison sentences, then the findings scream longer sentencing, but when you read the studies they don't add every past sentence into their calculations, just a generalization of the degree of past sentences committed, not the number of times and type of offense specifically which makes the results read in their favor of longer sentencing which is a load of crap.

I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:We gotta tell the courts that it's white progressives who made up this otherness thing, then they can stop sentencing blacks longer for the same crimes. I can see the defense counsel assuring the judge that their client is at least 50% European.

Finally we found the root of the problem.

And, then the OP is part of the truth.

We so nice, you so bad liberals

ain't helping.

These days, like the last several decades, the left is far more race conscious than, not only the right, but people in general, they just don't care to admit it.Historically the left's chief concerns were class and economics, but today it's race and sex.

Mr Reasonable wrote:I don't think there's any group that's not on the fringe that makes the argument that race doesn't exist. Like...who are you arguing against?

Actually, to this day, many scientists will argue race is a social construct, and progressives make use of that science, at least when it suits them, when it doesn't, like when it's time to blame white people for something, they'll have no qualms in discarding it.

Last edited by Gloominary on Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

However, when you think about it, every word/idea is a social construct, well they're also cognitive constructs, linguistic constructs, it's just constructs like race are icky, and scientists aren't just motivated by truth, in addition to money, power and prestige, they're motivated by ick, subconsciously or otherwise, they try to steer clear of it as much as they can.It requires some depth in metaphysics to realize everything is, wholly or partly, a social construct, but just because everything is, doesn't mean we can't make use of it all.Inches and feet are more obviously social constructs, they don't exist in nature, but that doesn't mean they can't be employed to keep track, parse, measure and make sense of things that do exist.In the same way, existing racial categories, like black, white and Asian, as crude, and icky as they are, can, and scientists could refine them, too, with the latest anatomical, genetic and neuropsychological data, but don't expect them to anytime soon, because that'd lend too much credence to the notion of race.

Referring to your race as Hispanic, makes about as much sense as referring to it as Canadian, American or Australian.It's more a nationality, or a supranationality than a race.Italy was built by Italians and to this day is predominantly Italian, culturally, ethnically and (sub)racially, whereas Hispanic nations were built by Spanish settlers, immigrants from various parts of Europe, Native Americans and African slaves, and so a Hispanic person can be descended from any or all of the aforementioned people, even from Asians who came later, culturally, ethnically and/or racially.

Theoretically Jews are more a clan than a race, in that they're all supposedly descended from their patriarch 'Abram', as well as a culture, ethnicity and religion.Racially most of them are either of European, West Asian or North African stock, or some combination thereof, but some are predominantly Subsaharan African, like Ethiopian Jews.Many Jews don't even have the same culture, speak the same language, or practice the same religion.A Jew can be a German, Pole, Spaniard or Moroccan, they can speak Arabic, English, Hebrew or Yiddish, they can be an atheist, Buddhist, Christian or Jew.So they barely exist as a people, again they're all supposedly descended from their patriarch Abram, 3 or 4 millennia ago, but who fucking knows, there's no way to prove that.

Really there is no such thing as Jews, and so nothing to rally around, or protect.There's no one thing they all have in common, and so we need better categories to describe these, entities.

Gloominary wrote:And so in conclusion, African and Native Americans, Hispanics and Jews are social constructs.

They don't exist.

Yes, they do by being separate from the typical biology of Europeans. Until they are predominantly European, they are a separate kind.

Right, they are different than Europeans, but most of them are also different than true African and Native Americans, they're people of mixed heritage, and that's how we should think of and treat them.And that's what we should refer to them as, you're not African Americans and so on, you're mixed race.

Mr Reasonable wrote:I don't think there's any group that's not on the fringe that makes the argument that race doesn't exist. Like...who are you arguing against?

Actually, to this day, many scientists will argue race is a social construct, and progressives make use of that science, at least when it suits them, when it doesn't, like when it's time to blame white people for something, they'll have no qualms in discarding it.

And that's the problem. "Real" scientists aren't supposed to be going on about things like social constructs. That's fake science, sociology class bullshit that's designed to make dumb people feel like they're participating in something smart. The difference in the intelligence level of the average physics/biology/chemistry student as compared to the average social "sciences" student is so massive that I don't even see how a connection is made between what those 2 groups are doing.

You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

Whatever 51% of them is or the largest percentage is what they should be regarded...if 51% African then they are African, if the largest percent is 32% Asian then that is what they are predominantly. There's no sane way to differentiate down to the smallest amounts of racial profile. Most everyone is a majority of something and that is how they ought to be classified. I'm 99.7% European but I shouldn't be called mixed due to .3%. The African Americans are predominantly of African descent but born in America, thus African American. I don't understand why there needs to be umpteen more subdivisions.

I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.

WendyDarling wrote:Whatever 51% of them is or the largest percentage is what they should be regarded...if 51% African then they are African, if the largest percent is 32% Asian then that is what they are predominantly. There's no sane way to differentiate down to the smallest amounts of racial profile. Most everyone is a majority of something and that is how they ought to be classified. I'm 99.7% European but I shouldn't be called mixed due to .3%. The African Americans are predominantly of African descent but born in America, thus African American. I don't understand why there needs to be umpteen more subdivisions.

Well, as someone with particular European roots, I am not satisfied with you classifying yourself as European. Because that includes racial and cultural groups that I can't stand and I don't think the EU should get into the wars that finally weed those out. All this Europe talk, we need to be able to separate from each other, at the very least.

WendyDarling wrote:Whatever 51% of them is or the largest percentage is what they should be regarded...if 51% African then they are African, if the largest percent is 32% Asian then that is what they are predominantly. There's no sane way to differentiate down to the smallest amounts of racial profile. Most everyone is a majority of something and that is how they ought to be classified. I'm 99.7% European but I shouldn't be called mixed due to .3%. The African Americans are predominantly of African descent but born in America, thus African American. I don't understand why there needs to be umpteen more subdivisions.

Well, as someone with particular European roots, I am not satisfied with you classifying yourself as European. Because that includes racial and cultural groups that I can't stand and I don't think the EU should get into the wars that finally weed those out. All this Europe talk, we need to be able to separate from each other, at the very least.

No one is stopping you. All Europeans are of a particular type...duh.

I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.

WendyDarling wrote:Whatever 51% of them is or the largest percentage is what they should be regarded...if 51% African then they are African, if the largest percent is 32% Asian then that is what they are predominantly. There's no sane way to differentiate down to the smallest amounts of racial profile. Most everyone is a majority of something and that is how they ought to be classified. I'm 99.7% European but I shouldn't be called mixed due to .3%. The African Americans are predominantly of African descent but born in America, thus African American. I don't understand why there needs to be umpteen more subdivisions.

I would say if your highest % is closer to 50% than 100% than you're mixed race, and if it's closer to 0% than 50% you're heavily mixed race.For example, if you're 75% European or more and 25% African or less, I'd refer to you as European, but if you're 74% European or less and 26% African or more, I'd refer to you as mixed race.

WendyDarling wrote:Whatever 51% of them is or the largest percentage is what they should be regarded...if 51% African then they are African, if the largest percent is 32% Asian then that is what they are predominantly. There's no sane way to differentiate down to the smallest amounts of racial profile. Most everyone is a majority of something and that is how they ought to be classified. I'm 99.7% European but I shouldn't be called mixed due to .3%. The African Americans are predominantly of African descent but born in America, thus African American. I don't understand why there needs to be umpteen more subdivisions.

I would say if your highest % is closer to 50% than 100% than you're mixed race, and if it's closer to 0% than 50% you're heavily mixed race.For example, if you're 75% European or more and 25% African or less, I'd refer to you as European, but if you're 74% European or less and 26% African or more, I'd refer to you as mixed race.

So you think the cut off should be 75%? Can you just say mixed race and leave it as that? Does it matter what they are a mix of? It's too confusing to get bogged down in the details of all the mixes, especially those who are partly everything. What's ironic is those people have to pick one thing to identify as on most important documents, so being 40% something may be what they self-identify with. How are you gonna sort that out, I mean really, DnA everyone then assign several major categories plus 100+ subcategories?

I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.

WendyDarling wrote:Whatever 51% of them is or the largest percentage is what they should be regarded...if 51% African then they are African, if the largest percent is 32% Asian then that is what they are predominantly. There's no sane way to differentiate down to the smallest amounts of racial profile. Most everyone is a majority of something and that is how they ought to be classified. I'm 99.7% European but I shouldn't be called mixed due to .3%. The African Americans are predominantly of African descent but born in America, thus African American. I don't understand why there needs to be umpteen more subdivisions.

Well, as someone with particular European roots, I am not satisfied with you classifying yourself as European. Because that includes racial and cultural groups that I can't stand and I don't think the EU should get into the wars that finally weed those out. All this Europe talk, we need to be able to separate from each other, at the very least.

No one is stopping you. All Europeans are of a particular type...duh.

Right, but you identified as a European. That's not an identification any more than I am a Eurasian, or I'm a Western Hemispherite. Europeans have been killing each other and hating each others racial and cultural aspects since a coon's age.

WendyDarling wrote:Whatever 51% of them is or the largest percentage is what they should be regarded...if 51% African then they are African, if the largest percent is 32% Asian then that is what they are predominantly. There's no sane way to differentiate down to the smallest amounts of racial profile. Most everyone is a majority of something and that is how they ought to be classified. I'm 99.7% European but I shouldn't be called mixed due to .3%. The African Americans are predominantly of African descent but born in America, thus African American. I don't understand why there needs to be umpteen more subdivisions.

I would say if your highest % is closer to 50% than 100% than you're mixed race, and if it's closer to 0% than 50% you're heavily mixed race.For example, if you're 75% European or more and 25% African or less, I'd refer to you as European, but if you're 74% European or less and 26% African or more, I'd refer to you as mixed race.

So you think the cut off should be 75%? Can you just say mixed race and leave it as that? Does it matter what they are a mix of? It's too confusing to get bogged down in the details of all the mixes, especially those who are partly everything. What's ironic is those people have to pick one thing to identify as on most important documents, so being 40% something may be what they self-identify with. How are you gonna sort that out, I mean really, DnA everyone then assign several major categories plus 100+ subcategories?

You can just refer to them as mixed race if you like.Personally, that's what I'm going to refer to them as, because it, is more convenient, but if you want to be more specific, you can refer to them as Mestizo, if they're European + Native American, or Mulatto, if they're European + African, or Zambo, if they're Native American + European.The Spaniards have already gone to all the trouble of naming these, entities, so we don't have to.

As for what 'Jews' ought to be called, a real Jew is a religious Jew, or at least a Zionist, its secular equivalent, an atheist of Jewish descent should just be referred to as, whatever his dominant culture, ethnicity or race is, German if they're German, Polish if they're Polish and so on, as through millennia of miscegenation, 'Jews' have little-nothing in common with that little wandering tribe from West Asia known as the Hebrews they're all, supposedly descended from.

You can just refer to them as mixed race if you like.Personally, that's what I'm going to refer to them as, because it, is more convenient, but if you want to be more specific, you can refer to them as Mestizo, if they're European + Native American, or Mulatto, if they're European + African, or Zambo, if they're Native American + European.The Spaniards have already gone to all the trouble of naming these, entities, so we don't have to.

Generalizing all those millions of people as a non-descript mixed race will never fly with the crazy liberals, each mixture would have to be specifically named like Eurasian wouldn't be specific enough. There'd be countless hybrids from all corners of the planet. Eskimozambique rings nicely. And each hybrid would get special but different allowances by law depending on their history of guilt and victimhood.

I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.